Blackmon v. Renasant Bank

• Decision Date: 17 March 2017
• Docket Number: 1150692
• Citation: 232 So.3d 224
• Parties: Deborah Michelle BLACKMON and the Estate of Brian Alan Blackmon v. RENASANT BANK
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

232 So.3d 224

Deborah Michelle BLACKMON and the Estate of Brian Alan Blackmon

v.RENASANT BANK

1150692

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

William K. Bradford of Bradford Ladner, LLP, Mountain Brook, for appellants.

William M. Hancock of Wolfe, Jones, Wolfe, Hancock, Daniel & South, LLC, Huntsville, for appellee.

PARKER, Justice.

Deborah Michelle Blackmon ("Deborah") and the estate of Brian Alan Blackmon ("the estate") appeal from a partial summary judgment entered in favor of Renasant Bank and against them by the Madison Circuit Court. We dismiss the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

On November 8, 2004, Deborah and her husband Brian Alan Blackmon (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Blackmons") executed an agreement establishing a home-equity line of credit with Renasant Bank secured by a mortgage on the Blackmons' house.¹ The affidavit testimony of Jerry Harris, first vice president of Renasant Bank, indicates that, also on November 8, 2004, the Blackmons made an initial draw on their home-equity line of credit in the amount of $110,000. Harris's affidavit states that, from July 21, 2006, to June 6, 2013, the Blackmons made a total of 125 withdrawals on the home-equity line of credit totaling "approximately $387,929.00." In addition to making withdrawals on the home-equity line of credit, the Blackmons also made payments on the home-equity line of credit during that time.

On June 14, 2013, Brian Alan Blackmon died. Harris's affidavit states that, following Brian Alan Blackmon's death, Deborah "made five separate payments" on the home-equity line of credit. However, the payments made by Deborah did not satisfy the entirety of the money the Blackmons owed Renasant Bank under the terms of the home-equity line of credit, and Deborah failed to make any additional payments. Deborah denied that she had executed the home-equity line of credit or the mortgage and, thus, denied liability for any outstanding balance due under the home-equity line of credit. Harris's affidavit states that the home-equity line of credit "is currently in default." Harris's affidavit states: "The balance on [the home-equity line of credit] as of June 23, 2015, is $129,545.86, inclusive of principal, interest and late fees." Harris's affidavit further states that "[t]he total amount due to Renasant Bank at this time, inclusive of principal, interest and attorney fees is $146,545.86."

On June 5, 2014, Renasant Bank sued Deborah and the estate seeking a judgment declaring that the Blackmons had executed the agreement establishing a home-equity line of credit with Renasant Bank and a mortgage on the Blackmons' house securing the home-equity line of credit and asserting a claim of breach of contract seeking to recover the amount of money owed under the terms of the home-equity line of credit. On July 7, 2014, Deborah and the estate filed an answer to Renasant Bank's complaint and asserted a counterclaim, requesting a judgment declaring that the mortgage on the Blackmons' house was not enforceable.

On May 4, 2015, by leave of the circuit court, Renasant Bank filed an amended complaint against Deborah and the estate. Renasant Bank reasserted its breach-of-contract claim and asserted additional claims for "equitable mortgage," "open account," and "account stated." Through these various theories of recovery, Renasant Bank's sole request for damages was the outstanding balance owed on the home-equity line of credit. On August 21, 2015, Renasant Bank filed a second amended complaint against Deborah and the estate. In addition to the claims detailed above, Renasant Bank asserted the following claims: unjust enrichment, money had and received, "quasi-contract," and "constructive trust." Through these various theories of recovery, Renasant Bank's sole request for damages was the outstanding balance owed on the home-equity line of credit.

On November 12, 2015, Renasant Bank filed a motion for a summary judgment. On December 31, 2015, the circuit court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of Renasant Bank on its claims alleging unjust enrichment and money had and received in the amount of $142,612.85. The circuit court specifically stated that "[a]ll other counts asserted by the parties remain pending."

On January 28, 2016, Deborah and the estate filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's partial summary judgment in favor of Renasant Bank. On February 23, 2016, the circuit court denied Deborah and the estate's postjudgment motion.

On March 28, 2016, Deborah and the estate purported to appeal the circuit court's December 31, 2015, partial summary judgment in favor of Renasant Bank. On November 28, 2016, the clerk of the Supreme Court entered an order remanding the case to the circuit court because all the claims pending before the circuit court had not been adjudicated in the circuit court's December 31, 2015, partial summary judgment. On remand, upon motion of Deborah and the estate, the circuit court certified its December 31, 2015, partial summary judgment in favor of Renasant Bank as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.²

Standard of Review

"Whether the action involves separate claims and whether there is a final decision as to at least one of the claims are questions of law to which we will apply a de novo standard of review." Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So.2d 988, 996 (Ala. 2006) (emphasis added).

Discussion

Although neither party challenges the appropriateness of the circuit court's Rule 54(b) certification of its December 31, 2015, partial-summary-judgment order in favor of Renasant Bank, "it is well settled that this Court may consider, ex mero motu, whether a judgment or order is sufficiently final to support an appeal." Natures Way Marine, LLC v. Dunhill Entities, LP, 63 So.3d 615, 618 (Ala. 2010). In the present case, as noted above, the circuit court certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b) its December 31, 2015, partial summary judgment as to Renasant Bank's unjust-enrichment and money-had-and-received claims against Deborah and the estate. This Court has stated that " ‘[n]ot every order has the requisite element of finality that can trigger the operation of Rule 54(b).’ " Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So.2d 354, 361 (Ala. 2004) (quoting Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (emphasis omitted)). We will first consider whether the circuit court's Rule 54(b) certification of its December 31, 2015, partial summary judgment is appropriate.

Rule 54(b) states, in relevant part:

"When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment."

Clearly, Renasant Bank's complaint involves multiple claims against multiple parties. " ‘[F]or a Rule 54(b) certification of finality to be effective, it must fully adjudicate at least one claim or fully dispose of the claims as they relate to at least one party.’ Haynes v. Alfa Fin. Corp., 730 So.2d 178, 181 (Ala. 1999)." Scrushy, 955 So.2d at 996.

We must consider whether Renasant Bank's unjust-enrichment and money-had-and-received claims were separate and distinct claims that were fully adjudicated by the circuit court's December 31, 2015, partial summary judgment. This Court considered a very similar issue in Scrushy. In North Alabama Electric Cooperative v. New Hope Telephone Cooperative, 7 So.3d 342, 345 (Ala. 2008), this Court summarized the applicable law from Scrushy:

"The Scrushy Court quoted with approval the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for ‘ "certain rules of thumb to identify those types of claims that can never be considered separate" ’ for purposes of Rule 54(b). 955 So.2d at 998 (quoting Stearns v. Consolidated Mgmt., Inc., 747 F.2d 1105, 1108 (7th Cir. 1984) ). One such rule is that ‘ " ‘claims cannot be separate unless separate recovery is possible on each.... Hence, mere variations of legal theory do not constitute separate claims.’ " ' Id. (quoting Stearns, 747 F.2d at 1108–09, quoting in turn Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Thompson Farms Co., 642 F.2d 1065, 1071 (7th Cir. 1981) ). The Scrushy Court also noted the similar rule of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeRieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 224 F.2d 198, 199 (2d Cir. 1955), which was summarized by the commentators of Federal Practice and Procedure:

" ‘ "A single claimant presents multiple claims for relief under the Second Circuit's formulation when the possible recoveries are more than one in number and not mutually exclusive or, stated another way, when the facts give rise to more than one legal right or cause of action .... However, when a claimant presents a number of legal theories, but will be permitted to recover only on one of them, the bases for recovery are mutually exclusive, or simply presented in the alternative, and plaintiff has only a single claim for relief for purposes of Rule 54(b)." ’

" 955 So.2d at 998 (quoting 10 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2657 (3d ed. 1998) (footnotes omitted))."

In Scrushy, this Court adopted the principles discussed above and concluded that "the various claims in the complaint [at issue in that case were] not all variations on a single theme." 955 So.2d at 998. This Court so concluded because some of the claims asserted by the plaintiff in that case sought damages that other of the claims did not. See id. (stating that "[the plaintiff's] alleged breach of duty in accepting bonuses that HealthSouth was not legally obligated to pay is a sufficiently separate breach that is not alleged elsewhere in the complaint").

In the present case, Renasant Bank...